|
DuckConference posted:i don't object to having to code during an interview, I just think the coding should be vaguely relevant to the job why arent you writing the iterative versions of these
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
FamDav posted:why arent you writing the iterative versions of these
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
DuckConference posted:i don't object to having to code during an interview, I just think the coding should be vaguely relevant to the job I literally never have used a recursive function professionally, now that you mention it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
just spent 20 minutes of an interview trying to figure out what problem the interviewer had with my approach I apparently forgot to use the word "memoize" on a trivially memoizable problem resulting in "extra work" expecting the RJ in 2-3 days
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
FamDav posted:why arent you writing the iterative versions of these because I'm the terrible programmer these questions were designed to weed out
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
FamDav posted:why arent you writing the iterative versions of these why aren't you using the tail recursive versions of these?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
why are you dealing with that set of problems in an embedded context
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
honestly given the options of "dynamically allocate a stack" and "ehh let the call stack implicitly sort it out" id be inclined to just let the call stack deal with it on a microcontroller but first i'd wonder why the heck i had the problem in the first place and see if there was a bigger picture thing we were missing
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
qhat posted:I feel the problem with you guys is that you get asked a question and your brain explodes in an exponentially diverging avalanche of what ifs instead of just doing exactly what the interviewer asked for my biggest problem is i'll start out by explaining the naive solution but about a quarter of the way in my mind is already coming up with better & better solutions and I get tripped up. it's never cost me a job but it is an unusual practice that doesn't quite correlate to actual on the job coding
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:my biggest problem is i'll start out by explaining the naive solution but about a quarter of the way in my mind is already coming up with better & better solutions and I get tripped up. it's never cost me a job but it is an unusual practice that doesn't quite correlate to actual on the job coding that's literally the best way to actually solve problems, and also interview solving problems, except for the get tripped up part "first thoughts: you do it this really obvious and simple way, but that's really bad because here this thing, so what we could do to improve that is..."
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
qhat posted:I literally never have used a recursive function professionally, now that you mention it. get a language that supports tail recursion, like scheme, erlang, or c
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:get a language that supports tail recursion, like scheme, erlang, or c I completely forgot C had tco until now
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
VOTE YES ON 69 posted:that's literally the best way to actually solve problems, and also interview solving problems, except for the get tripped up part yeah it's a good way to solve problems in your head but having to vocalize and write the naive solution and not being allowed to give up on it even when you've come up with better solutions is what trips me up. if i spoke like my actual train of thought it'd be complete gibberish for five minutes until i finally get close to a final solution
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Symbolic Butt posted:I completely forgot C had tco until now it doesn't? a c compiler does (or rather, might)
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
always use the indefinite article *a* compiler, never *your* compiler
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:yeah it's a good way to solve problems in your head but having to vocalize and write the naive solution and not being allowed to give up on it even when you've come up with better solutions is what trips me up. if i spoke like my actual train of thought it'd be complete gibberish for five minutes until i finally get close to a final solution Often a naive solution can be converted directly into a more efficient solution by swapping out some of the n operations with logn or even constant operations. That's probably what they are looking forward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
VOTE YES ON 69 posted:it doesn't? a c compiler does (or rather, might) oh yes yes, sorry I hope I didn't lose a chance at the yospos shitposter opening with this
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
fake tco gets obnoxious when 'finish' doesn't take me where i'm expecting
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Symbolic Butt posted:oh yes yes, sorry welcome aboard  smug pedantry aside is it generally fine to write tc recursion in c? I'm not a c programmer, so idk if that's like a certain-to-be-optimized-everywhere thing, or 'in our specific compiler setup in this project, it works great'
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
I wouldn't want to have production code relying on it. If it's truly tail recursive then it's trivial to just implement it iteratively.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
VOTE YES ON 69 posted:welcome aboard i don't know what neurotypicals that program c do (do they even exist?) but most of my c projects only have to run on a single compiler-arch-os-libc stack so i just disassemble them and make sure they're compiling the way i expect
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:i don't know what neurotypicals that program c do (do they even exist?) i can fake as one for a few hours
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
i hope im not one
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:*Nodding Sagely* the technical tests are plausible deniability i have heard from multiple people about their hiring practices is that they, by default, assume their indian and pakistani applicants all cheated to obtain their certifications and memorize common answers to technical questions and that they craft their interviews to catch them giving memorized answers odd that it only seems endemic with indian and pakistani applicants and not the parade of dumbass white dudes who just happen to be stanford grads
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
lmao as if stymie would give the time of day to someone that doesn't do labour
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
just got recruiter spam listing a company car as a benefit and I'm morbidly curious because I thought that species was extinctqhat posted:I literally never have used a recursive function professionally, now that you mention it. do you spring the recursion question second or third in the tech screen?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Stymie posted:the technical tests are plausible deniability a ton of white guys get caught in that though?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
im gonna co-host my first couple of tech interviews p sure im supposed to just listen and not ask anything but im looking forward to it anyway as one of the other co-hosts is an ex-prof from a top 50 cs school and im wondering how he grills people
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:just got recruiter spam listing a company car as a benefit and I'm morbidly curious because I thought that species was extinct Idk but I'd at most expect them to know what it is and why it's bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Stymie posted:the technical tests are plausible deniability there is a problem with cheating and it's complicated. you have an extremely competitive environment (was reading an article that said 1500 vacancies at a bank received more than 17 million applications) and a burdened educational system that favors rote memorization. this doesn't make it right to discriminate based on race, but these hiring practices exist for a reason as you need some way to filter through people, even if there are glaring systemic issues and cultural bias
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:just got recruiter spam listing a company car as a benefit and I'm morbidly curious because I thought that species was extinct is the car a good one
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
why the gently caress would you want a company car unless your job involves a lot of driving in which case your job/life sucks just increase your salary and let you buy/lease your own car
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
OldAlias posted:there is a problem with cheating and it's complicated. you have an extremely competitive environment (was reading an article that said 1500 vacancies at a bank received more than 17 million applications) and a burdened educational system that favors rote memorization. this doesn't make it right to discriminate based on race, but these hiring practices exist for a reason as you need some way to filter through people, even if there are glaring systemic issues and cultural bias why is cheating a problem? who cares if the person coding your fart app or enterprise fart database might have cribbed some notes to jump through an arbitrary hoop? if they can't do the job, then you can fire them and hire someone else from the other 16,999,999 applicants technical tests only exist to filter out people who may have passed the initial sniff tests (e.g. their name sounds white enough and they went to the right school)
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
because recovering from copyright infringement or patent violations or whatever is substantially more expensive than the cost of that fuckup employee
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
like why bother waiting an extra 6+ months to find out they're definitely garbage
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
I'm still stuck on how a skills test is more racist than literally any other part of the hiring process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
why is anything you're doing more important than giving someone a shot to try and learn? it must be genuinely terrifying to live life as though the world is filled with greedy charlatans seeking to take what you've obviously earned entirely on your own
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:I'm still stuck on how a skills test is more racist than literally any other part of the hiring process. no you see clearly the part which has an objectively correct or incorrect answer has more room for discrimination than the part where they just talk to you for like 20 minutes and make a gut call on whether or not to move forward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:I'm still stuck on how a skills test is more racist than literally any other part of the hiring process. because it's easier to produce evidence that an applicant didn't pass your (arbitrary and rigged) skills test than any other reason because you'd have to justify why all your "poor culture fits" all had indian or pakistani last names
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
AnoHito posted:no you see clearly the part which has an objectively correct or incorrect answer has more room for discrimination than the part where they just talk to you for like 20 minutes and make a gut call on whether or not to move forward. lol i bet you are a strong believer in iq testing
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 21:35
|
|